{
  "id": 11918300,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EMIL KEITH BYRD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Byrd",
  "decision_date": "1996-05-21",
  "docket_number": "No. COA95-830",
  "first_page": "497",
  "last_page": "499",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 497"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "9 ALR4th 972",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 S.E.2d 831",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1933,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "831-32",
          "parenthetical": "when three coconspirators tried in joint trial, the acquittal of two of them requires acquittal of the third"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N.C. 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621300
      ],
      "year": 1933,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "504",
          "parenthetical": "when three coconspirators tried in joint trial, the acquittal of two of them requires acquittal of the third"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0503-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "373 S.E.2d 874",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "323 N.C. 479",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2561346,
        2562408,
        2565201,
        2562581,
        2561461
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/323/0479-05",
        "/nc/323/0479-03",
        "/nc/323/0479-02",
        "/nc/323/0479-04",
        "/nc/323/0479-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "371 S.E.2d 711",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "717"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N.C. App. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525059
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "207-08"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/91/0198-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "440 S.E.2d 776",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "781",
          "parenthetical": "in joint trial of two defendants charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, acquittal of one defendant does not preclude guilty verdict of other defendant on basis of concerted action principle"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 N.C. 647",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2531405
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "657",
          "parenthetical": "in joint trial of two defendants charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, acquittal of one defendant does not preclude guilty verdict of other defendant on basis of concerted action principle"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/335/0647-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "462 S.E.2d 523",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 N.C. 655",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        793218,
        793062,
        793140,
        793146,
        793148
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/341/0655-04",
        "/nc/341/0655-05",
        "/nc/341/0655-02",
        "/nc/341/0655-01",
        "/nc/341/0655-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "459 S.E.2d 48",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N.C. App. 375",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11915332
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "380"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/119/0375-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "449 S.E.2d 391",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "397",
          "parenthetical": "a person may not be convicted of accessory before the fact if the principal is acquitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 N.C. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2521132
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "254",
          "parenthetical": "a person may not be convicted of accessory before the fact if the principal is acquitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/338/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "431 S.E.2d 29",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 N.C. 794",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2549160,
        2549802,
        2547275,
        2549779,
        2544507
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/333/0794-05",
        "/nc/333/0794-01",
        "/nc/333/0794-04",
        "/nc/333/0794-02",
        "/nc/333/0794-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-5.2",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "427 S.E.2d 318",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "321-22"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N.C. App. 373",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525510
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "378"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/109/0373-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 S.E.2d 587",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2393544
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/310/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S.E.2d 214",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "220",
          "parenthetical": "because the indictments did not charge the defendant with aiding and abetting a named person, the acquittal of that person \"was not a sufficient basis for dismissal of the charges\""
        },
        {
          "page": "220"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 261",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558671
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "269",
          "parenthetical": "because the indictments did not charge the defendant with aiding and abetting a named person, the acquittal of that person \"was not a sufficient basis for dismissal of the charges\""
        },
        {
          "page": "269"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0261-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 320,
    "char_count": 5503,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.621887471290392e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28988157224610395
    },
    "sha256": "b1b6839b5afa199bf19898916b9527393d2ca243d55ef32bd64e61219baecb2b",
    "simhash": "1:1d75ebfa443f6953",
    "word_count": 912
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:52.508825+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JOHN and MARTIN, Mark D., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EMIL KEITH BYRD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nEmil Keith Byrd (defendant) appeals a jury verdict finding him guilty of aiding and abetting a robbery with a dangerous weapon and aiding and abetting an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious bodily injury. Defendant was sentenced to serve twenty years in prison.\nDefendant was indicted with aiding and abetting Vincent McKinney (McKinney) in assaulting Andre Allen (Allen) with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious bodily injury. He was also indicted with the armed robbery of Allen. At the close of all the evidence, the State requested the robbery indictment be \u201csubmitted [to the jury] as aider and abettor.\u201d Without objection from the defendant the trial court agreed to submit \u201cboth charges on a theory of aiding and abetting.\u201d Subsequent to defendant\u2019s trial, McKinney was tried and found not guilty of both the assault and robbery of Allen.\nThe issue presented is whether defendant\u2019s conviction for assault based on aiding and abetting is valid where the person whom defendant was charged with aiding and abetting is found not guilty of the crime.\nIn North Carolina the acquittal of a named principal at a separate trial requires acquittal of one charged as an aider and abettor of that named principal. See State v. Beach, 283 N.C. 261, 269, 196 S.E.2d 214, 220 (1973) (because the indictments did not charge the defendant with aiding and abetting a named person, the acquittal of that person \u201cwas not a sufficient basis for dismissal of the charges\u201d), overruled on other grounds, State v. Adcock, 310 N.C. 1, 310 S.E.2d 587 (1984); see also State v. Suites, 109 N.C. App. 373, 378, 427 S.E.2d 318, 321-22 (pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-5.2, accessories before the fact are treated the same as principals, and an acquittal of a named principal at a subsequent trial is an acquittal of the accessory before the fact), disc. rev. denied, 333 N.C. 794, 431 S.E.2d 29 (1993); State v. Wilson, 338 N.C. 244, 254, 449 S.E.2d 391, 397 (1994) (a person may not be convicted of accessory before the fact if the principal is acquitted). The acquittal, in a separate trial, of a principal not named in the indictment does not serve as an acquittal of the one charged as an aider and abettor of the unnamed principal. Beach, 283 N.C. at 269, 196 S.E.2d at 220; compare State v. Soles, 119 N.C. App. 375, 380, 459 S.E.2d 48 (acquittal of one coconspirator in a trial does not require acquittal of other coconspirator in separate trial), disc. rev. denied, 341 N.C. 655, 462 S.E.2d 523 (1995). The acquittal, in a joint trial, of the principal does not serve as an acquittal of the defendant charged as the aider and abettor of that principal. See State v. Reid, 335 N.C. 647, 657, 440 S.E.2d 776, 781 (1994) (in joint trial of two defendants charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, acquittal of one defendant does not preclude guilty verdict of other defendant on basis of concerted action principle); but cf. State v. Robey, 91 N.C. App. 198, 207-08, 371 S.E.2d 711, 717 (in joint trial of one defendant charged with accessory after the fact and another defendant charged as principal, acquittal of the principal requires acquittal of the accessory), disc. rev. denied, 323 N.C. 479, 373 S.E.2d 874 (1988); cf. State v. Raper, 204 N.C. 503, 504, 168 S.E.2d 831, 831-32 (1933) (when three coconspirators tried in joint trial, the acquittal of two of them requires acquittal of the third).\nIn this case the indictment charging defendant with assaulting Allen specifically named McKinney as the person whom the defendant aided and abetted. McKinney was acquitted of assaulting Allen at a subsequent separate trial. Therefore, because the named principal was acquitted of assaulting Allen at a separate trial, defendant\u2019s conviction for aiding and abetting that assault must be vacated.\nAlthough the robbery indictment was amended at the close of all the evidence to allege that defendant acted as an aider and abettor in the robbery of Allen, defendant does not argue on appeal that his conviction for aiding and abetting robbery with a dangerous weapon should be reversed on the basis that McKinney was acquitted of robbery at a subsequent trial, and therefore we do not address that issue. Defendant, however, has made three other arguments to reverse his robbery conviction. We have reviewed these arguments and determined that they do not require reversal of the robbery conviction.\nAiding and abetting robbery \u2014 No error.\nAiding and abetting assault \u2014 Vacated.\nJudges JOHN and MARTIN, Mark D., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Floyd M. Lewis, for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Charles L. Alston, Jr., for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EMIL KEITH BYRD\nNo. COA95-830\n(Filed 21 May 1996)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 47 (NCI4th)\u2014 aiding and abetting \u2014 principal found not guilty \u2014 conviction invalid\nDefendant\u2019s conviction for assault based on aiding and abetting was invalid where the named principal alleged in the indictment was subsequently found not guilty of the crime.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 167.\nAcquittal of principal, or his conviction of lesser degree of offense, as affecting prosecution of accessory, or aider and abettor. 9 ALR4th 972.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 20 March 1995 in Orange County Superior Court by Judge Donald W. Stephens. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 March 1996.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Floyd M. Lewis, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Charles L. Alston, Jr., for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0497-01",
  "first_page_order": 533,
  "last_page_order": 535
}